[GraniteStateConservative]

Except for amending the constitution, it was quite evident that it wasn't constitutional. It's a separation of powers issue-- in the Articles and not the amendments. We supported it because it made good policy and we didn't care about its constitutionality. Just like the Dems and gun control and CFR. They approve of the effects of the law and don't care about whether it's actually "legal."

[supercat]

Except for amending the constitution, it was quite evident that it [line-item veto] wasn't constitutional. It's a separation of powers issue-- in the Articles and not the amendments.

Is the line-item veto any worse of a delegation of Congress' powers than the many statutes which create regulatory agencies with rule-making authority?

BTW, what I would like to see as a 'line-item' veto facility would be that when a bill reaches the President he would have the right to veto it, redacting whatever parts he deemed appropriate, and then have the bill go to both houses of Congress for an up/down vote either immediately or immediately after they try for a veto-override.